Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660159 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-08 16:53:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > - = N/A > x = Check > ! = Problem > ? = Not evaluated > > === REQUIRED ITEMS === > [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1] > [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. > [x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. > [x] Package consistently uses macros. > [x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x] PreReq is not used. > [x] Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2] > [x] Buildroot is correct > (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). > [x] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of > %install. > [x] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't > work. > [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > [x] The spec file handles locales properly. > [x] Changelog in prescribed format. > [!] Rpmlint output is silent. > [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in > its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package is included in %doc. > [x] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other > legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. > [3,4] > [x] Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > > 2e9eb4d5d414d946a4c8268415eaecde thunar-vfs-1.1.1.tar.bz2 > 2e9eb4d5d414d946a4c8268415eaecde thunar-vfs-1.1.1.tar.bz2.orig > > > [x] Compiler flags are appropriate. > [x] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. > [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x] Permissions on files are set properly. > [x] Each %files section contains %defattr. > [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. > [x] File names are valid UTF-8. > [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. > [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x] Package contains no bundled libraries. > [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. > [x] Package contains no static executables. > [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. > [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). > [x] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > [x] Package does not genrate any conflict. > [x] Package does not contains kernel modules. > [x] Package is not relocatable. > [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one > supported architecture. > [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x] Package installs properly. > [x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [6] > > === SUGGESTED ITEMS === > [x] Package functions as described. > [x] Latest version is packaged. > [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x] SourceX is a working URL. > [x] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > [x] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q > --requires). > [x] %check is present and all tests pass. > [x] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package > using a fully versioned dependency. > [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [x] Dist tag is present. > [x] Spec use %global instead of %define. > [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > [x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [x] No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [x] Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x] File based requires are sane. > [x] Uses parallel make. > > === Issues === > 1. Why the commented out: > > #BuildRequires: libICE-devel > #Requires: dbus-x11 left-overs from your Thunar.spec I guess. > I'm happy to co-maintain. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: thunar-vfs Short Description: Virtual filesystem shipped with Thunar 1.0 and earlier releases Owners: cwickert kevin Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review